How voters can avoid waking up with a democratic hangover

Published 7:12 pm, Thursday, June 30, 2016

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is trying to protect her country’s interests in Europe after a majority of Brits voted to leave the European Union.

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is trying to protect her country’s interests in Europe after a majority of Brits voted to leave the European Union.

Photo: GEOFFROY VAN DER HASSELT, AFP/Getty Images

How voters can avoid waking up with a democratic hangover

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

The #Regrexit hashtag encapsulates Britain’s morning-after regrets since a referendum in which nearly 52 percent of voters opted to leave the European Union. A Daily Mail poll estimates that more than a million voters — 7 percent of the electorate — wish they could change their vote.

Had Britain refrained from holding a referendum, it would not have experienced #Regrexit. But referendums and ballot measures are permanent parts of many modern democracies. Californians know this well, and the state’s voters have had their own moments of regret. By the time Proposition 8 approached its final day in court, for example, Californians had reversed course and come to embrace same-sex marriage by a large margin.

Fortunately, a system has been developed that can improve direct democratic elections. This electoral reform, which is already practiced in the Western U.S., helps a small body of citizens think through complex issues on the ballot, then share their findings with their peers before they take a momentous vote.

Consider a voter my research team interviewed in Colorado. After voting early in that state’s 2014 election, this individual read a neutral statement about a statewide proposition. She was surprised to discover numerous exemptions to the proposed genetically modified food labeling law. She said she would have voted differently if she had read it before casting her ballot.

What this Colorado voter held in her hands was a one-page statement written by fellow state residents. The model for this experiment was the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review, which began in 2010.

Every even-numbered year, the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review Commission convenes a panel of 20 to 24 randomly selected citizens to deliberate on a ballot measure. After days of hearing from expert witnesses, and meeting in small groups, the panel writes a Citizens’ Statement. This page appears in the official Voters’ Pamphlet, which the Oregon secretary of state distributes to every registered voter.

With support from the National Science Foundation, the Democracy Fund and others, my colleagues and I have studied this process for six years. Through 17 reports and articles, we have shown what the Review can add to direct democracy — and how that could alter the character of referendums like Brexit.

Consider any topic on which you have strong preferences. Perhaps you view yourself as “tough on crime.” Does that mean you support any legislation that aims to improve public safety? What if the law was so poorly written it could have disastrous unintended consequences?

A 2010 Review panel in Oregon asked itself that question when weighing an initiative that would have imposed tough minimum sentences on repeat sex offenders. On closer inspection, it became clear that the law could put older teenagers behind bars for 20 years if they “sexted” underage peers more than once. This and other flaws swayed even the most conservative Review panelists, who wrote a scathing critique. A survey experiment showed that those who read the Review panel’s statements turned sharply against the proposal.

In elections as close as Brexit, a Review can change the outcome.

Oregon voters turn to the Review statements in search of reliable information. The fact that the Review statements are written by fellow citizens is the key. As with the Citizens’ Assemblies held in Canada and in the United Kingdom, small random samples can do what the larger public cannot. These “minipublics” act as a trustee that deliberates on behalf of a wider public, then shares what it learns.

What happens when policy advocates disagree? Review panels haven’t always been able to resolve such disputes, but often do. A 2012 Oregon Review panel weighed a proposal to remove a corporate tax loophole and provide funding for schools. Review panelists were sympathetic to this idea but heard testimony that the promised result might not come to pass. They unanimously found that new tax revenues “are not guaranteed” to increase primary education funding because the state legislature retains discretion over how it spends the state’s funds.

Imagine how, in Brexit, this kind of clarification might have helped refute the Vote Leave’s deceptive claim that Britain spends 350 million pounds in public funds per week on the European Union that could flow back into the National Health Service.

If the Review and similar reforms help voters reject bad choices at the ballot box, they may force governments to act directly on questions they would rather avoid. After all, direct democratic processes were designed not to replace governments, but to improve them.